SAKIRversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                      WRIT - C No. - 38404 of 2026

Sakir
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                   :   Sandeep Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)                   :   C.S.C., R.V. Pandey

Court No. - 2
                  HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
                  HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
R.V. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank of India.

2. We have perused the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt
Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur holding Additional Charge of the Debt Recovery
Tribunal, Allahabad in S.A. No. 32 of 2025.

3. We are dismayed to find a very insensitive approach disclosed by the
learned counsel appearing for the Bank there and may be a little lack of
appropriate response by the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal.

4. We think that the Presiding Officer also should have been more careful in
the matter where possession is about to be lost. In S.A. No. 32 of 2025,
the Debt Recovery Tribunal has passed an order noting that the petitioner
has deposited a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs and a complete calculation of his
outstanding shall be furnished by an interim order of the said date i.e.
25.08.2026. The D.R.T. directed that the Bank will not confirm the sale.

5. A perusal of the order dated 31.08.2026 shows that the Bank has already
sold the property and the petitioner is facing dispossession.

6. The S.D.M., Sadar, Mathura has addressed a Memo dated 29.08.2026 to
the Incharge P.S. Kotwali, District-Mathura indicating that possession of the
property be delivered to the Bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act
on 23.09.2026, if in the meantime no stay order from a Court of competent
jurisdiction is produced.
                                                          WRIC No. 38404 of 2026
                                  2


7. This brings us back to the order dated 31.08.2026 passed by the Tribunal
which was done two days after the S.D.M.'s Memo issued to the In-charge,
Police Station Kotwali District-Mathura directing delivery of possession to
the Bank. The order shows that the learned counsel for the Bank made a
statement that there is no urgency involved in the matter since the property
has been sold. He conveniently held back from the Tribunal that the
petitioner is facing dispossession in a case where confirmation of sale is
already stayed by the Tribunal.

8. We also notice that the Tribunal taking note of the Bank's stand and rather
accepting it for its word has fixed a date as far flung as 09.12.2026, and that
too before the Registrar for completion of pleadings; not before the Court. It
is these facts put together that made us express our anguish in the earlier part
of this order about the insensitive approach on part of more than one of the
functionaries involved.

9. Though, the matter is pending on the Tribunal's Board and we ought not
interfere by taking it on our Board and adjudicating the matter, but since the
petitioner is in peril of losing his house and shelter which is a matter that
extends to impinging upon the petitioner's right under Article 21 of the
Constitution.

10. We have to make up for the Tribunal's lapse and come to the petitioner's
aid may be marginally. We, therefore direct the petitioner to make an
application before the Tribunal seeking relief against his impending
dispossession from his house, the property in dispute.

11. The Tribunal shall advance the dates after notice to the other side, fixing
it as early as possible, according to the availability of the Presiding Officer,
but certainly not in December or November. The date on which the
application is taken up, appropriate orders shall be made by the Tribunal
with regard to protection of the petitioner's possession that he seeks. In case
the petitioner makes an application within a week before the Tribunal
seeking an injunction against his dispossession, till such application is heard
by the Tribunal and appropriate orders made, the petitioner shall not be
dispossessed from the property in dispute.

12. Immediately, upon the Tribunal making orders on the petitioner's
application, this order would automatically come to an end.
                                                                                              WRIC No. 38404 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    13. It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the rights of parties on
                                    merits.

                                    14. The petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders.

                                    15. Let this order be communicated to the District Magistrate, Mathura, Sub
                                    Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mathura and the Branch Manager, Bank of
                                    India, Mathura through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura by
                                    the Registrar (Compliance).

                                    September 23, 2026
                                    Shweta
                                                                          (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SWETA YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad